Convection-enhanced delivery of temozolomide and whole cell tumor immunizations in GL261 and KR158 experimental mouse gliomas

Background Glioblastomas (GBM) are therapy-resistant tumors with a profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Chemotherapy has shown limited efficacy against GBM. Systemic delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs is hampered by the difficulty of achieving intratumoral levels as systemic toxicity is a dose-limiting factor. Although some of its effects might be mediated by immune reactivity, systemic chemotherapy can also inhibit induced or spontaneous antitumor immune reactivity. Convection-enhanced delivery of temozolomide (CED-TMZ) can tentatively increase intratumoral drug concentration while reducing systemic side effects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of intratumorally delivered temozolomide in combination with immunotherapy and whether such therapy can generate a cellular antitumor immune response. Methods Single bolus intratumoral injection and 3-day mini-osmotic pumps (Alzet®) were used to deliver intratumoral TMZ in C57BL6 mice bearing orthotopic gliomas. Immunotherapy consisted of subcutaneous injections of irradiated GL261 or KR158 glioma cells. Tumor size and intratumoral immune cell populations were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Results Combined CED-TMZ and immunotherapy had a synergistic antitumor effect in the GL261 model, compared to CED-TMZ or immunotherapy as monotherapies. In the KR158 model, immunization cured a small proportion of the mice whereas addition of CED-TMZ did not have a synergistic effect. However, CED-TMZ as monotherapy prolonged the median survival. Moreover, TMZ bolus injection in the GL261 model induced neurotoxicity and lower cure rate than its equivalent dose delivered by CED. In addition, we found that T-cells were the predominant cells responsible for the TMZ antitumor effect in the GL261 model. Finally, CED-TMZ combined with immunotherapy significantly reduced tumor volume and increased the intratumoral influx of T-cells in both models. Conclusions We show that immunotherapy synergized with CED-TMZ in the GL261 model and cured animals in the KR158 model. Single bolus administration of TMZ was effective with a narrower therapeutic window than CED-TMZ. Combined CED-TMZ and immunotherapy led to an increase in the intratumoral influx of T-cells. These results form part of the basis for the translation of the therapy to patients with GBM but the dosing and timing of delivery will have to be explored in depth both experimentally and clinically.


INTRODUCTION
Background 3 a. Include sufficient scientific background (including relevant references to previous work) to understand the motivation and context for the study, and explain the experimental approach and rationale. b. Explain how and why the animal species and model being used can address the scientific objectives and, where appropriate, the study's relevance to human biology.
Objectives 4 Clearly describe the primary and any secondary objectives of the study, or specific hypotheses being tested.

METHODS
Ethical statement 5 Indicate the nature of the ethical review permissions, relevant licences (e.g. Animal [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986), and national or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals, that cover the research.

Study design 6
For each experiment, give brief details of the study design including: a. The number of experimental and control groups. b. Any steps taken to minimise the effects of subjective bias when allocating animals to treatment (e.g. randomisation procedure) and when assessing results (e.g. if done, describe who was blinded and when). c. The experimental unit (e.g. a single animal, group or cage of animals). A time-line diagram or flow chart can be useful to illustrate how complex study designs were carried out.

7
For each experiment and each experimental group, including controls, provide precise details of all procedures carried out. For example: a. How (e.g. drug formulation and dose, site and route of administration, anaesthesia and analgesia used [including monitoring], surgical procedure, method of euthanasia). Provide details of any specialist equipment used, including supplier(s). b. When (e.g. time of day). c. Where (e.g. home cage, laboratory, water maze). d. Why (e.g. rationale for choice of specific anaesthetic, route of administration, drug dose used).
Experimental animals 8 a. Provide details of the animals used, including species, strain, sex, developmental stage (e.g. mean or median age plus age range) and weight (e.g. mean or median weight plus weight range). b. Provide further relevant information such as the source of animals, international strain nomenclature, genetic modification status (e.g. knock-out or transgenic), genotype, health/immune status, drug or test naïve, previous procedures, etc.  Housing and husbandry 9 Provide details of: a. Housing (type of facility e.g. specific pathogen free [SPF]; type of cage or housing; bedding material; number of cage companions; tank shape and material etc. for fish). b. Husbandry conditions (e.g. breeding programme, light/dark cycle, temperature, quality of water etc for fish, type of food, access to food and water, environmental enrichment). c. Welfare-related assessments and interventions that were carried out prior to, during, or after the experiment.
Sample size 10 a. Specify the total number of animals used in each experiment, and the number of animals in each experimental group. b. Explain how the number of animals was arrived at. Provide details of any sample size calculation used. c. Indicate the number of independent replications of each experiment, if relevant.
Allocating animals to experimental groups 11 a. Give full details of how animals were allocated to experimental groups, including randomisation or matching if done. b. Describe the order in which the animals in the different experimental groups were treated and assessed.

12
Clearly define the primary and secondary experimental outcomes assessed (e.g. cell death, molecular markers, behavioural changes).
Statistical methods 13 a. Provide details of the statistical methods used for each analysis. b. Specify the unit of analysis for each dataset (e.g. single animal, group of animals, single neuron). c. Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach.

Baseline data 14
For each experimental group, report relevant characteristics and health status of animals (e.g. weight, microbiological status, and drug or test naïve) prior to treatment or testing. (This information can often be tabulated).
Numbers analysed 15 a. Report the number of animals in each group included in each analysis. Report absolute numbers (e.g. 10/20, not 50% 2 ).
b. If any animals or data were not included in the analysis, explain why.

Outcomes and estimation
16 Report the results for each analysis carried out, with a measure of precision (e.g. standard error or confidence interval).
Adverse events 17 a. Give details of all important adverse events in each experimental group. b. Describe any modifications to the experimental protocols made to reduce adverse events. c. Describe any implications of your experimental methods or findings for the replacement, refinement or reduction (the 3Rs) of the use of animals in research.

Generalisability/ translation
19 Comment on whether, and how, the findings of this study are likely to translate to other species or systems, including any relevance to human biology.
Funding 20 List all funding sources (including grant number) and the role of the funder(s) in the study.